It's "whoever wins."

Yeah, but we need jobs. But it is how we all vote as it depends how many thumbs up or down.

Given that the Washington DC area has the greatest per-capita number of lawyers in the USA, it was only a matter off time before lawyers switched from chasing ambulances to chasing state/local jurisdiction referendums.

What is the logic used in the two letters from Dan Friedman and Bonnie Kirkland which leads them to their shared conclusion that only votes cast and not all registered voters represent "all qualified voters?"

I am voting against the referendum #7 simply because I do not believe in
any form of gambling!

The only argument that you see on the commercials against question 7 is that the money is not going to go to schools. I think they have made that point abundantly clear. So we are supposed to vote against question 7 and keep that money going to other states? Where it goes in the state budget is up to the elected officials. And the voters have a say over who gets elected. And they do not want to talk about all of the jobs it will create in Maryland. They have nothing to say on that topic. This seems like common sense to me really. Put that money in maryland's budget or another State's budget? As a MD resident, I think I know which way I will go with this...

I am not a gambler, but how could something so simple cause so much confusion? The position taken regarding every qualified voter has no standing, legal or otherwise. I admit that the language is a little unclear, but its intent is clear from three perspectives: 1. In matters of voting, unless specifically spelled out, like two-thirds of the members of the senate, votes have always been won by a majority of those voting. 2. Tradition and practice are on the side of the issue of counting only votes that were cast. 3. Not all registered voters are qualified voters - for example some felons and prisoners are not qualified voters even thought they may have been registered. Registered, but not qualified voters can also include those who were fraudulently registered or are deceased. Finally, since the language in the constitution is borrowed for similar actions by the legislature, one can reasonably assume that this new interpretation would overturn past legislative actions, and even past elections.

WV is trying any and everything to stop the state of Maryland from keeping the gaming money in Maryland, Hey WV it will not work!!!!

The lawsuit is correct, but the question should not be on the ballot in the first place.
The proposed slots parlor is too close to the nation's capitol and is incommensurate with the image of greater Washington. You can even joke about Congressmen playing the machines. In the past there have been attempts to put gambling boats on the Potomac and casinos in Northeast, but they failed for the same reason - it is inappropriate to locate gambling right next to the place where our laws are enacted and our President resides. We have to keep the Capitol area straight as a historical location for tourists to visit and there is certainly enough here without making it into a gambling area like Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Also, many people lose their hard earned money playing slot machines, and that is no way to raise money, for any purpose the state government and developers have promised.

What is Dernogas' agenda? He must want something.

We already have the most degenerative form of gambling - slot machines. Richard, I think your stance against gambling has already been undermined by the popular vote once, and this is a terrible reason to not support positive expansion of gambling for increased revenue.

This area and many other great cities in America are known as non-casino areas. We are proud of our status and the financial success which has enabled our freedom. I recall how Atlantic City stood before the takeover, and now it has lost its former image to the western Las Vegas type feeling. Slot machine gambling doesn't belong in the National Capitol area in view of its general association with loose money and organized crime.

Bring on all forms of Gambling, it has a better return on your money than the banks do, the stock markets does, politicians are ruining us all, We are going to let gays marry, illegals stay and take tax payer money, so can we at least pass the legalization of prositution, the girls would have jobs at least, more than the democrats have given us.

Is it gambling really, or only real estate development to generate revenue for nearby businesses, hotels and restaurants? We hear the reports of hotel companies and of construction plans involving sums only an economist can understand. How can we afford to contribute to these already rich corporate interests? They have advertised it, such that it sounds like a charity. Save your money, gamble on stocks or other investments, the proposed benefits come across as advertising gimmicks. They're better off giving discounts in the hotels and other entertainment facilities in National Harbor.to popularize it and generate sales.